ArticleZdravstveno varstvo2022
Standardization of Quality of Diagnoses, Interventions, and Outcomes (Q-DIO) Measurement Instrument for Use in Slovenia.
Article in Zdravstveno varstvo, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Enhancing nursing care through technology and standardized nursing language: The TEC-MED multilingual platform.International journal of nursing knowledge · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo describe the cross-cultural adaptation of the Quality of Diagnoses, Interventions and Outcomes (Q-DIO) Instrument into the Slovene language.
methodsBased on general international guidelines, a six-step process of localization to translate and adjust the instrument from English into the Slovene language was used. Content validity was quantified based on an agreement of eight experts. The instrument was tested using a sample of 140 nursing documentations from two Slovenian tertiary hospitals.
results26 of 29 items showed an excellent content validity index ranging from 0.857 to 1.000, and a modified kappa index above 0.856. The content validity indexes of the three remaining items adjusted based on experts' comments were subsequently estimated at 1.000. Construct validity was significantly different between the two groups of documentations. The Cronbach coefficient for the whole questionnaire was 0.860. Cronbach's alpha if item deleted reamins above 0.80 for all items. The criteria for the difficulty grades of items and discrimination validity were acceptably met for more than 75% of items.
conclusionBased on the results of the study, it may be concluded that Q-DIO is a reliable instrument for measuring the quality of nursing documentation. The deviations in the results of some items are due to poor nursing documentation quality, and indicate that nursing classifications have not yet been fully implemented into practice in the study setting. Additional testing of the instrument is recommended.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.